cameroncrazy1984:bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.

cameroncrazy1984:Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you want to profile people?

Why would you need to profile those that are showing symptoms of mental illness?

Whos observing them prior to their evaluation?

Confused thinkingLong-lasting sadness or irritabilityExtremely high and low moodsExcessive fear, worry, or anxietySocial withdrawalDramatic changes in eating or sleeping habitsStrong feelings of angerDelusions or hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not really there)Increasing inability to cope with daily problems and activitiesThoughts of suicideDenial of obvious problemsMany unexplained physical problemsAbuse of drugs and/or alcohol

You seem like a prime candidate for an eval...someone give cameron an eval stat!

Other humans? Not everyone lives in complete isolation like you appear to.

ahh so naming names?

Maybe we can dedicate an entire secret force to spying on people, maybe give them black trench coats with lots of pockets for ummm objects to observing citizens with.

bigsteve3OOO:cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.

bigsteve3OOO:cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.

If by "let it die in the senate rather than vote on it" you mean it was filibustered by Republicans and didn't get the required 60 votes to make final voting, sure. Why must you continue to be disingenuous and/or lie about what actually happened? There was a vote on it. The Republicans used a rule that required 60 votes to pass it. There were never 60 Democrats in the Senate.

This is now the third time that I've proven to you that Republicans and Democrats are not the same. Shall we do it a fourth time? I have a whole metric ton of other examples.

cameroncrazy1984:bigsteve3OOO: cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.

If by "let it die in the senate rather than vote on it" you mean it was filibustered by Republicans and didn't get the required 60 votes to make final voting, sure. Why must you continue to be disingenuous and/or lie about what actually happened? There was a vote on it. The Republicans used a rule that required 60 votes to pass it. There were never 60 Democrats in the Senate.

This is now the third time that I've proven to you that Republicans and Democrats are not the same. Shall we do it a fourth time? I have a whole metric ton of other examples.

He's a troll, and a pretty bad one at that, I just gave up and put him on ignore.... you could prove it to infinity, but he's committed to the character.

keithgabryelski:Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round. we can negotiate what that means -- but I would be conservative in restricting more weapons rather than less.

Why don't we define "assault rifle" as what the consensus is that has been used for years and not what any random jerk-off decides is the correct definition?

How about you help the discussion instead of throwing down "jerk off". I'm unconcerned with the name of weapon.

I see no benefit to allowing any citizen the right to a semi-automatic weapon or anything that could be converted into such a thing.

And that opinion isn't just mine.

You'll get your hackles up -- maybe you care about this part of the constitution -- I don't really care if you do -- I think it is an outdated law. Nearly as outdated as the 3rd amendment.

I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

heypete:keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. ...

Because it's cheap? That the reason to own an assault rifle and thousands of rounds?

Farker Soze:I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

dinch:Ah, ok. Thanks. Have limited knowledge of AR ammo and always thought that their rounds tumbled so that they could drop whatever they hit, pretty much wherever they got hit.

No problem. :)

Certain types of military-spec 5.56mm NATO rounds are unstable in tissue and can tumble and fragment. They have poorer performance at longer range, so they've been phased out in favor of more stable ammo with better long-range performance. Hunting-type ammo does not behave in that manner.

keithgabryelski:Farker Soze:I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great

I said any jerk-off. If you want to interpret that as referring to you personally, go ahead.

keithgabryelski:there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

I'd be fine with a mechanism that allows for such weapons to be stored on a third party grounds that can be checked out for target practice but do not leave the premises.

*checks profile* Yup, Boston.

I can sort of understand this attitude when I hear it from people who live in urban areas. There, the primary purpose of a gun (aside from the occasional target practice) tends to be "shoot other humans."

For those of us who live out in the sticks, guns tend to be a tool first and a weapon second. Depending on the local wildlife, there are places where it's not safe to go without one. Depending on the local economy, you or your neighbors may be using it to keep food on the table. And sometimes, Wild Kingdom comes to your front lawn and starts nosing around the porch and peeking in the windows. As much as some people enjoy the macho fantasy aspect of it, the truth is that self-defense, home defense and the like come a distant second to fending off the vagaries of mother nature.

And any weapon sufficient for those legitimate purposes has more than enough "firepower to assault a group of people."

Tasty Taste: So what you tryin' to say? You tryin' to say that I'm, like, paranoid 'n stuff? Do I look like the kind of person that would be paranoid? I mean, when you rollin' with THIS (holds up a bazooka), would you be paranoid?

keithgabryelski:Farker Soze:I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great

I completely disagree with your opinion on firearms ownership. That being said, I have to respect your willingness to actually explain your opinion, and engage in debate about it. You sir are actually helping.

Wasteland:keithgabryelski: there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

I'd be fine with a mechanism that allows for such weapons to be stored on a third party grounds that can be checked out for target practice but do not leave the premises.

*checks profile* Yup, Boston.

I can sort of understand this attitude when I hear it from people who live in urban areas. There, the primary purpose of a gun (aside from the occasional target practice) tends to be "shoot other humans."

For those of us who live out in the sticks, guns tend to be a tool first and a weapon second. Depending on the local wildlife, there are places where it's not safe to go without one. Depending on the local economy, you or your neighbors may be using it to keep food on the table. And sometimes, Wild Kingdom comes to your front lawn and starts nosing around the porch and peeking in the windows. As much as some people enjoy the macho fantasy aspect of it, the truth is that self-defense, home defense and the like come a distant second to fending off the vagaries of mother nature.

And any weapon sufficient for those legitimate purposes has more than enough "firepower to assault a group of people."

no they don't -- you can assault one or two -- but not a group.

yes, i see issues with non-urban areas and guns -- but i wasn't talking about all guns -- i am willing to engage that question, though.

Farker Soze:keithgabryelski: Farker Soze:I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great

I said any jerk-off. If you want to interpret that as referring to you personally, go ahead.

Persecution complex much?

i'm just calling you out on stupid shiat. and let me make it clear -- when you want to engage someone in an argument and you chose to first twist their argument into something that is ridiculous, YOU are committing the fallacy of "doing stupid shiat".

keithgabryelski:surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.

And I do? I don't recall ever stating that or anything that could be construed that way.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.

Certainly. No argument there. Fortunately, the Constitution includes mechanisms for amending it.

Do I wish that it were easier to amend the constitution? Sometimes -- there are certainly some changes that could be made to update it to reflect today's world, but I didn't write it and really don't have much say in the matter.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.

The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapons ban" and state-level restrictions have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they have significant amounts of violent crime.

What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others. Should bolt-action rifles, as are commonly used by hunters, be banned? What about revolvers? Revolvers can be used to assault groups of people. Should they be banned? Lever-action guns, which have been around for ~150 years, can fire quite quickly and can be used for nefarious purposes. How far does your definition extend?

Sure, i won't buy them -- but I don't want you to be able to posses them.

Why? What harm does my lawful ownership and use of firearms do? Unless you're a paper target, you have nothing to fear from me.

Violent crime is a symptom of some other problem. I'd much rather that resources be applied to help solve that problem rather than focus on specific tools that are occasionally used for unlawful purposes, hence my earlier mention of the Swiss: they have widespread firearm ownership (according to the Wikipedia there are 45.7 guns per 100 residents) and very low violent crime rates. Finland and Sweden also rank in the top 10 list of countries sorted by number of guns per capita (with Norway, France, and Canada all very close) and their crime rates are quite low. Serbia, Cyprus, and Saudi Arabia are also relatively low crime (though I have no idea how accurate the stats are for those countries, though) and have a large number of guns per capita. This suggests that access to firearms is not the driving cause of violent crime -- there's some other factor.

globalwarmingpraiser:I completely disagree with your opinion on firearms ownership. That being said, I have to respect your willingness to actually explain your opinion, and engage in debate about it. You sir are actually helping.

keithgabryelski:i'm just calling you out on stupid shiat. and let me make it clear -- when you want to engage someone in an argument and you chose to first twist their argument into something that is ridiculous, YOU are committing the fallacy of "doing stupid shiat".

globalwarmingpraiser:I completely disagree with your opinion on firearms ownership. That being said, I have to respect your willingness to actually explain your opinion, and engage in debate about it. You sir are actually helping.

well, it's good to hear respect. thank you. i didn't expect this to be an easy discussion.

as an aside, i understand the desire for people to keep their rights sacred -- it's a right, holy shiat this is where we put our efforts as citizens to ensure they aren't tossed aside willy nilly.

but just as people would consider modifying the 14th Amendment to do away with the "Jus soli" in favor of "jus sanguinis" -- i'm actually in favor of this discussion. I don't hold sacred the idea that born on US soil of foreign parents yields any reasonable right to citizenship. Although I don't see a good reason to appose Jus Soli, either -- it seems a decision was made a while back ago, it was a reasonable decision and why change if there isn't a compelling need.

in any case, just as people would reconsider the 14th (and may consider a compelling need -- hey, bring it up -- i don't see it, but maybe i'm wrong) -- why not reconsider the 2nd? I certainly see a compelling need to reduce these weapons in the face of what is needed by individuals for reasonable use vs. the needs of communities to limit firepower in their limits. And specifically some features of weapons that are of a less traditional need, and some of the laws around the distribution of any gun or rifle.

keithgabryelski:Wasteland: And any weapon sufficient for those legitimate purposes has more than enough "firepower to assault a group of people."

no they don't -- you can assault one or two -- but not a group.

Sure you can. Any decent deer rifle will get quite a few if the shooter is sniping from cover; depending on the circumstances, people may not even know which way to run. (Think back to the tower sniper in '66, Charles Whitman. Killed 16, wounded 32, and he did most of that with a bolt-action Remington.) Grandpa's 20-year-old (but well cared for) bird hunting shotgun? That's a Browning 12 gauge, and at close range it's absolutely lethal.

The common denominator of these killings isn't automatic or semi-auto weapons per se. It's an area with lots of potential targets, combined with the potential for lots of panic.

yes, i see issues with non-urban areas and guns -- but i wasn't talking about all guns -- i am willing to engage that question, though.is there another mechanism for solving issues in the sticks?

That's (partly) the point. It is all guns. Human beings are animals. We have the same resistance to high-velocity bits of metal as any other animal- that is to say, not much. If it'll do for them, it'll do for us.

And there are still places where, sometimes, you have to be able to kill animals as quickly and cleanly as possible for your own well-being.

heypete:What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others.

Aaaaand beat me to the point. I should check comments before hitting the button.

teeny:The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.

Absolutely agreed...of course, it seems to mostly be in response to the "OMG BAN ALL GUNS NOW" posts...or at least that's what I've seen on online news comments (dear god, why do I even read them? I guess I'm a sucker for pain.).

If a discussion is to be had about gun rights/gun control, I'd much rather it be in a calm, reasoned, and relatively unemotional way that is supported by facts. Emotional knee-jerk reactions in the aftermath of a rare but high-profile event rarely make for good policy.

heypete:keithgabryelski: surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.

And I do? I don't recall ever stating that or anything that could be construed that way.

yeah, those were different thoughts -- i didn't mean to impart the second on to you in any way -- that was poor juxtaposition of sentences on my part.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.

Certainly. No argument there. Fortunately, the Constitution includes mechanisms for amending it.

Do I wish that it were easier to amend the constitution? Sometimes -- there are certainly some changes that could be made to update it to reflect today's world, but I didn't write it and really don't have much say in the matter.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.

not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

it's not obvious to me that removing all rights to handguns isn't a reasonable solution -- maybe conceal and carry is a good first step with severe limitations on any carrying inside community limits should the community value such things.

Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapons ban" and state-level restrictions have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they have significant amounts of violent crime.

but overall crime is not the issue -- it's the massive slaughter that an assault weapons ban would be intended to curtail.

What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others. Should bolt-action rifles, as are commonly used by hunters, be banned? What about revolvers? Revolvers can be used to assault groups of people. Should they be banned ...

I'm trying to find a position that allows for hunting of some type -- with the knowledge that a sharpened spoon can do a lot of damage if you are able to sneak up on a number of people.

Whitman is an interesting case -- my initial reaction would be the location of the weapon, ie, in a large community. He was in a fortified location (well, at least a protective location) with the advantage of height -- he had a great advantage because of his location and proximity to lots of people.

In any case, i'd be ok with a full ban on weapons in certain areas -- which includes both a bolt action and handgun.

I'd counter the ban with firing ranges inside city limits that could locker citizen's weapons for the time they wish and for use inside the range for training.

firefly212:Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

lol, no... there's no such thing as a ccw zone in Colorado... there's like... federal buildings, post offices, and a couple other kinds of buildings you can't take guns into, but you couldn't possibly get a city ordinance to make a whole town be ccw-free. Liberal though I may be, we Coloradans do love guns. Aside from that, given the guy had an AR and a shotgun in addition to his two pistols, I don't really see how a ccw is relevant to him. In the theater, any well-trained person wouldn't have fired (even if they had their gun)... dark theater, hundreds of panicked patrons, tear gas f'n with your vision, and the shooter having body armor... odds are far higher that you'd end up killing an innocent person than killing the bad guy. Gohmert notwithstanding, reasonable gun owners would have done exactly what all the patrons of the theater did (given the numbers, I'd wager a couple had ccw permits and maybe even guns)... but you still do the right thing... get to a tactically better place, then evaluate the situation... given that police were on-site within two minutes, by the time any holders would have gotten to a reasonably safe place to engage, it was no longer their place to do so.

And any attempt to play cowboy after the police arrived would have marked that hotshot as an accomplice and be shot at by police officers. Not a wise position to get into.

heypete:teeny: The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.

Absolutely agreed...of course, it seems to mostly be in response to the "OMG BAN ALL GUNS NOW" posts...or at least that's what I've seen on online news comments (dear god, why do I even read them? I guess I'm a sucker for pain.).

If a discussion is to be had about gun rights/gun control, I'd much rather it be in a calm, reasoned, and relatively unemotional way that is supported by facts. Emotional knee-jerk reactions in the aftermath of a rare but high-profile event rarely make for good policy.

This. At this point in the gun-control debate Even the term "assault weapon" in very nebulously defined. Thanks to terrorism, a bottle of bleach is a WMD. The whaaargarbl gets unbearable.

teeny:The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.

It's largely because of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that I am pretty much in favor of banning firearms. We're not going to get any compromises from these gun nuts, and they already think the fedrul gub'mint is out to take their guns away --might as well indulge their apocalyptic fantasies and go all-out Waco on them. I'd rather see that than more and more women and children killed by lunatics who got their gun as easily as they would a candy bar at the local 7-Eleven.*

Yes, I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country. I'd be more than willing to settle for some compromise position, but the NRA and the Teabagger types have made it absolutely clear that that isn't going to happen.

*Yes, I know women and children were killed in Waco, but it was the best reference I could come up with.

The Name:teeny: The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.

It's largely because of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that I am pretty much in favor of banning firearms. We're not going to get any compromises from these gun nuts, and they already think the fedrul gub'mint is out to take their guns away --might as well indulge their apocalyptic fantasies and go all-out Waco on them. I'd rather see that than more and more women and children killed by lunatics who got their gun as easily as they would a candy bar at the local 7-Eleven.*

Yes, I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country. I'd be more than willing to settle for some compromise position, but the NRA and the Teabagger types have made it absolutely clear that that isn't going to happen.

*Yes, I know women and children were killed in Waco, but it was the best reference I could come up with.

Except you got the 94 AWB and it didn't do anything for crime. As well as they "compromise" was that the gun grabbers just kept coming. Call of your dogs and I'll call of mine....

keithgabryelski:not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

NFA automatic firearms are one of the most fully tracked items in the country. You need to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own one. You need to get approval to transfer one to anyone, who will also have to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own it. You need to inform the ATF to transport one across any state line. The government probably knows where 99 percent of them are at any time. The only thing they could do to track them better is weld a GPS unit on all of them. You can't "grandfather" your way out of any of this.

The Name:I'd be more than willing to settle for some compromise position, but the NRA and the Teabagger types have made it absolutely clear that that isn't going to happen.

This. I hate the idea of a police state as much as anyone, but the teabaggers are already pissed about the current permit laws, waiting periods, registration fees and mandatory gun safety classes...all of which seem more than reasonable to me.

simplicimus:I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?

yes all that stuff he got was legal,available to the general public,most of it obtained online and it never raised a red flag anywhere. 6000 rounds of ammo. 4 guns including an AR-15 with a 100 round drum mag. tear gas grenades,body armor etc.

hell he had to jump through less hoops than I have to to get my goddamned drivers license renewed this year. I have to have a birth certificate,social security card and 2 utility bills with my name and address on them. and I've had Ga license for almost 40 yrs now. goddamned GOP and their new voter ID laws making everything farking complicated. and don't even get me started on trying to buy primatene tablets for my asthma.

The Name:I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country.

So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society? That it's okay to simply abrogate the Constitution to make you feel better about a tragedy? How do you reconcile that with your otherwise liberal leanings, such as the right to privacy, free speech, choice, and a host of others?

BTW, your odds of being killed by a drunk driver are about twice those of being murdered by gun. Where is your outrage against the evil devices used to perpetrate these deaths? Where is your clarion call to outlaw cars so irresponsible drivers won't use them to kill thousands more innocent men, women and children every year?

Too easily sheeple like you are stampeded into surrendering their fundamental rights in the cynically manipulation of their fears. You should be ashamed to call yourself an adult.